Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

On computer chess (or even human) piece valuations, a 'controversial variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence' (according to Dutch Grandmaster Jan Timman in The Art of Chess Analysis, circa 1980, referring to 5...Nf6-e4 below) that I (as a master-level player) have liked to play as Black over the years just might illustrate an exception to giving a very significant bishop-pair bonus on an 8x8 board to the side possessing it, even when there appears to be no clear reason to make the exception.

The variation in question goes 1.Pd2-d4 Ng6-f6 2.Pc2-c4 Pe7-e6 3.Nb1-c3 Bf8-b4 4.Pe2-e3 Pb7-b6 5.Ng1-e2 Nf6-e4 6.Qd1-c2 Bc8-b7 7.Pa2-a3 Bb4-c3(ch) 8.Ne2-c3 Ne4-c3 9.Qc2-c3 (see diagram below; note that nowadays in my games, some players prefer to give Black the bishop pair instead, by playing 6.Bc1-d2[!] - in either case there are some tiny factors going on in favour of either side, but these are not so easy to articulate, at least in a few words, even for master-level players; also note my 2008 book Encyclopedia of Chess Openings volume E, 4th edition gives the line as definitely slightly better for White ["+="] in either case, but my more modern chess database's human evaulation [i.e. that of 2015's Chess Assistant16] gives White only its usual symbolic edge ["+=/="] as in its more mainline openings' variations, also with the CA16 engine's evaluation as only 0.04 pawns in White's favour, in either case):

Piece values are an average over all plausible positions anyway, furthermore based on the assumption that the value of an army is the sum of its parts. (Although the B-pair bonus strictly speaking already is an exception to that). So it is to be expected that in individual positions the performance is not as good as the standard value suggests. E.g. the value of a Bishop is commonly considered to be dependent on the shade the Pawns are on. And a Queen is more valuable when the opponent has poor King safety, so you can effectively double-move it via intermediate checks.

What you show here is not evidence of that, however. That there is no obvious compensation doesn't mean there is no compensation. Apart from the Bishop-Knight imbalance, the position is quite asymmetric. So the absolute value of the position cannot really be attributed to material only. A better test would be to replace one of the white Bishops by a Knight, and then look how much the position scores on average. If white is then significantly worse you know it cannot be due to material, as that is perfectly balanced.

Hi H.G.:

Chess Assistant16 doesn't provide the engine that it used for evaluations, regrettably. However I experimented in another way (though not as you would prefer), using Houdini3 (released 2012) as an engine instead. In the exact position in the line culminating with 9.Qc2-c3 that I gave, after some considerable time to look, Houdini3 evaluates the position as 0.15 (or "+=/="), somewhat better than the 0.04 of CA16's engine (as an aside, a disbelieving master friend dared me to play this line as Black against him in any tournament, back in the 1980s, and gallingly I lost the one time I obliged - in spite of previously winning a number of nice master-level games with it, at least sometimes attacking with queens on the board).

I tried replacing the B on c1 with a White knight (a fairly lousy square for a Kt), and this time Houdini3 gave the position as -0.12 (or "=") after considerable time spent. I then tried looking at the same position but with the White knight on d2 (not a great square completely for a knight, either, but it allows White to develop at least a move faster, probably); in this case Houdini3 rated the position as exactly 0.00 (or "="). Note: replacing the Kt on d2 with a dark-squared White bishop gives a position Houdini3 evaluated as 0.17 (or "+=/="); White can formally develop all his pieces a move faster (probably), but he'll want to eventually improve the lot of that piece (White B) now on d2 - though that seems true if a White Kt were there, too.

It may be worth noting that CA16's engine rates the Nimzo-Indian Defence (position after 3...Bf8-b4) as worth 0.07 (or "+=/=") for White, while Houdini3 gives it as 0.16 (or "+=/=") for White. CA16 considers the Nimzo-Indian complex of defences as numerically Black's best defence to 1.Pd2-d4 (i.e. with 'best' play).

Is chess [still] important? An older member of my chess club once opined in the new millennium that chess is no longer as important as before. I didn't ask what he meant. To me, chess reached its high mark in the 1970's, mainly with the Geo-political stakes involved in the Fischer-Spassky match, and later the Karpov-Korchnoi one. Chess was also important back then since it was seen as a test for AI whether a machine can beat a highly skilled human player at the game. Chess suffered to some degree because of what followed historically, in both cases.

These days, one Googles 'why is chess important' and the top answers that come up have only to do with the benefits of chess to students and/or children. Does anyone see any other meaningful reasons why chess might be viewed as important in modern times?

edit: I also posted the above on a Canadian Chess (CFC) message board. A reply by Aris Marghetis went: "If I may humbly suggest, chess serves as an inspiration: people of all kinds of differences being able to come together to compete, to create, to enjoy.

I'm not aware of any other single activity that can be played across all kinds of divisions that humanity has created, maintains, etc. Chess is universal!"

heres a FEN from detective conan season 6 episode 136-137 Ive tried all over with several engines but I cant find a winning play for white.

I'm hoping someone out there can. (not by a stupid play from black but a perfect play by white...)

thank you so much to anyone who tries

.I'm almost certain the game is unplayable as the original may hold both black bishops on black and also holds 9 pawns for black but this is my playable FEN for the board in the episode afformentioned.)

Thanks again, happy analysis to you all.

3Q4/B1ppkp2/1r2P1p1/1p4pQ/1n1p2b1/2bq2R1/1prn2K1/4N3 b - - 0 1

(My play above, the original below, I hope for any contribution and saves of games shared <3) if there is request Ill uplaod anaysis of the attempts and engines I've used for my play as I havnt done any play yet on the origninal. (3Q4/B1ppkp2/1r2P1p1/1p4pQ/1b1p2n1/2bq1rR1/1ppn2K1/4N3 b - - 0 1)

Is chess [still] important? An older member of my chess club once opined in the new millennium that chess is no longer as important as before. I didn't ask what he meant. To me, chess reached its high mark in the 1970's, mainly with the Geo-political stakes involved in the Fischer-Spassky match, and later the Karpov-Korchnoi one. Chess was also important back then since it was seen as a test for AI whether a machine can beat a highly skilled human player at the game. Chess suffered to some degree because of what followed historically, in both cases.

In the TikTok era Chess is more relevant than ever. In a world were people are increassingly lacking concentration, playing chess can not only help people maintain focus, but also evade the modern insanity. 

I'd like to think chess has gained a new lease of life/popularity. Especially in the West, possibly due to the Netflix Queen's Gambit series (appealing especially to potential women players). That plus a slight lack of things to do during the pandemic (at least at first), and the internet (which at least apparently at first took some interest away from over-the-board play, due to chess servers being popular, but nowadays it may be that players play either way more). Time will tell if it's just another boom/fad for chess, like the Fischer-boom was world-wide in the early 1970s. My old acquaintence at my chess club valued organized over-the-board chess play most, as I do.